Honest question about "Origin of Species"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Then what does that have to do with our conversation?

Why did you (if it was you) inject "self awareness" into this conversation?
You were the one that made the false injection of "souls" into this conversation. I was merely explaining how men and other apes are similar. You were the one that made the first unsupported claim. You are trying to shift the blame from your errant post.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Those abilities are only due to a larger brain. It is not an increase in complexity.

A more complex brain. A brain which is able to conceive, and understand, complex creation.

And remember if you only show new traits and then claim that is an "increase in complexity" then you have refuted the source that whois linked.

This is why you must be able to define any terms that you use in an argument. If you can't define a term, you can't use it.

As I pointed out earlier, the proof is in what the human, vs a chimp, creates and produces.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
-_- by that logic, I am more complex than my grandmother, because I know how a smartphone works. You do realize that humans have developed complex machinery very recently, right?

Yes, I'm very aware of that. I'm also aware that no chimp can play a piano concerto.
 
Upvote 0

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,521
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
You don't seem interested in the real data at all: . . .
on the contrary, i'm very much interested in "real data".
problem is, i haven't seen any that says things become alive and that bacteria can become a man.
lot and lots of explanations though.
darwin gave it a fair shot, and failed.
they dug him up again, and he again failed.
when everyone starts pointing this stuff out it's like "oh, you misunderstand . . . yada, yada, yada".
so, what do we have now?
a tree that looks like a web and life arising from not one organism but a pool of them.
keep trying, you'll work it all out i guess.
it's really a shame that science can't admit they lied to us about the fossils, isn't it.

evolution, as it was taught to me, is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on mankind.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
on the contrary, i'm very much interested in "real data".
problem is, i haven't seen any that says things become alive and that bacteria can become a man.

sfs gave you the real data of how H. sapiens evolved from a common ancestor shared with chimps.

darwin gave it a fair shot, and failed.
they dug him up again, and he again failed.

"Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf
when everyone starts pointing this stuff out it's like "oh, you misunderstand . . . yada, yada, yada".
so, what do we have now?
a tree that looks like a web and life arising from not one organism but a pool of them.

From Koonin himself:

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., 27])."
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

it's really a shame that science can't admit they lied to us about the fossils, isn't it.

Which of these fossils is a lie?

toskulls2.jpg


evolution, as it was taught to me, is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on mankind.

Perhaps you should learn the actual theory of evolution that scientists teach and accept.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
A transited into N?

"A" represents basal features that would be expected in the common ancestor. B through J are arranged by age, oldest first. They show that hominids started out as being more like apes and through time acquired more and more human features. This is exactly what we should see if evolution is true.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"A" represents basal features that would be expected in the common ancestor. B through J are arranged by age, oldest first. They show that hominids started out as being more like apes and through time acquired more and more human features. This is exactly what we should see if evolution is true.

A didn't transit into L (sorry, I was remembering the graphic you used to use which included an 'N' skull)?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
A didn't transit into L (sorry, I was remembering the graphic you used to use which included an 'N' skull)?

I never said that it did. B through J are the hominid transitionals, and they are transitional. Fossils don't transit, by the way. That is something you are making up.
 
Upvote 0

golgotha61

World Christian in Progress
Site Supporter
Jul 19, 2011
752
48
Ohio
✟79,112.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This makes even less sense since we know there was no "Adam and Eve" either. The Bible states that all people were wiped out. We know that is not the case. It says all animals were wiped out. We know that is not the case. There is no reliable evidence for even your very limited, pointless flood. Why believe it?


There is no reason to doubt that Adam and Eve as described in scripture are historical people. Again, the traditional view of Adam and Eve is not what I propose but that aside, scripture treats these two people as having a historical context.

The narrative was written to the ANE culture which means that the ANE area and populace was the only group affected by God’s dealings. Even in the traditional context, not all people were wiped out since those on the ark were saved as well as the animals that were put into the ark. You are still trapped in the traditional meaning of the text and I realize the difficulty in thinking and reasoning as those who inhabited the ANE but that is the only way that we can find the intended meaning of these ancient texts.

I think it is safe to assume that localized floods occurred in the ANE during the time when the biblical flood occurred. It is without reason to deny that such events occurred, so I don’t need proof that a massive catastrophic flood occurred in a localized area. To assume that catastrophic events never took place in the time of the ancients, is ludicrous. I believe the flood account because it is true: see below.



No, some cultures ripped off the flood story of other cultures, such as the Hebrews ripping off the older story "The Epic of Gilgamesh". But there is no reason to believe any of them.


No one ripped off anything. As I pointed out before, a common narrative among so many ANE cultures demands a common event. There is no reason to “rip off” another culture’s worldview unless that worldview aided said culture in understanding the cataclysmic events that mankind had no control over and could not explain. This common thread among so many cultures concerning a horrific flood is another reason why I believe the event to be historical.

It is often said that many of these OT biblical accounts are based on mythology. If one accepts the validity of comparative studies, then one will recognize that the mythologies of the ancient cultures were in fact their science (Walton 14). The purpose of science is to aid in understanding the environment that one inhabits and to determine why events take place as they do and to try and control these events. That is what the ancients did in what we call mythology but to them it was science. So, if I say the science of the ANE, then I am referring to their mythology. The ancients attempted to control environmental events by appealing to the gods. To them, every event, what we would call natural events, was at the behest and control of the gods. There was no such thing as “natural.” All happenings that were out of the control of mankind were in the control of the gods.


But God did not come through in this case. And where did this limited flood occur?


I am not sure that I know what you are saying here but God accomplished what He desired. The flood took place in the same area from which the accounts of the flood originated. Remember, there was no knowledge of any other area than what the ancients had experienced. So to them, the only "earth" or "world" that existed was what they had experienced.

Works Cited
Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers

Grove: IVP Academic, 2010. Kindle file.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
A more complex brain. A brain which is able to conceive, and understand, complex creation.



As I pointed out earlier, the proof is in what the human, vs a chimp, creates and produces.

Nope, one does not need a more complex brain for that. You keep failing abysmally since you cannot even define "comlpex".

Perhaps if you could define "complex" you would have half a chance in this debate. But since creationists cannot define their terms I doubt if you will be able to do so.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There is no reason to doubt that Adam and Eve as described in scripture are historical people. Again, the traditional view of Adam and Eve is not what I propose but that aside, scripture treats these two people as having a historical context.

The narrative was written to the ANE culture which means that the ANE area and populace was the only group affected by God’s dealings. Even in the traditional context, not all people were wiped out since those on the ark were saved as well as the animals that were put into the ark. You are still trapped in the traditional meaning of the text and I realize the difficulty in thinking and reasoning as those who inhabited the ANE but that is the only way that we can find the intended meaning of these ancient texts.

I think it is safe to assume that localized floods occurred in the ANE during the time when the biblical flood occurred. It is without reason to deny that such events occurred, so I don’t need proof that a massive catastrophic flood occurred in a localized area. To assume that catastrophic events never took place in the time of the ancients, is ludicrous. I believe the flood account because it is true: see below.






No one ripped off anything. As I pointed out before, a common narrative among so many ANE cultures demands a common event. There is no reason to “rip off” another culture’s worldview unless that worldview aided said culture in understanding the cataclysmic events that mankind had no control over and could not explain. This common thread among so many cultures concerning a horrific flood is another reason why I believe the event to be historical.

It is often said that many of these OT biblical accounts are based on mythology. If one accepts the validity of comparative studies, then one will recognize that the mythologies of the ancient cultures were in fact their science (Walton 14). The purpose of science is to aid in understanding the environment that one inhabits and to determine why events take place as they do and to try and control these events. That is what the ancients did in what we call mythology but to them it was science. So, if I say the science of the ANE, then I am referring to their mythology. The ancients attempted to control environmental events by appealing to the gods. To them, every event, what we would call natural events, was at the behest and control of the gods. There was no such thing as “natural.” All happenings that were out of the control of mankind were in the control of the gods.





I am not sure that I know what you are saying here but God accomplished what He desired. The flood took place in the same area from which the accounts of the flood originated. Remember, there was no knowledge of any other area than what the ancients had experienced. So to them, the only "earth" or "world" that existed was what they had experienced.

Works Cited
Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers

Grove: IVP Academic, 2010. Kindle file.

Sorry, this all sounds like mere male bovine end product. The flood may have some, and I mean very little basis in reality. There may have been a local flood and that is about it. For anything more you have a huge burden of proof and you cannot meet that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

golgotha61

World Christian in Progress
Site Supporter
Jul 19, 2011
752
48
Ohio
✟79,112.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, this all sounds like mere male bovine end product.


Seriously? This is your method of reason and the answer to a problem that you cannot solve through the methods that you have in past depended upon? Perhaps you are demonstrating the point that I made in post #95: if one has “an axe to grind of simply presuppositions to support, the historical, literary, and eventually confessional value of the text is undermined” (Walton 33).


The flood may have some, and I mean very little basis in reality. There may have been a local flood and that is about it. For anything more you have a huge burden of proof and you cannot meet that.


I maintain that the Genesis flood story is historical and part of this posit rests on the commonality of flood accounts of several ANE cultures. Another major resting place for the validity of the historicity of the biblical flood narrative is in comparative studies and the speech-act theory. I suggest that the onus is on you to invalidate all the accounts of those cultures along with that of the Bible. However, I do take a grain of hope that you have granted at least an inclination to accept the biblical flood account as historical, even if it has “very little basis in reality” as you say. I’ll see you around.


Blessings,

Golgotha61

Works Cited
Walton, John B. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2006. Kindle file.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The problem is flood stories are common to almost all tribes that live on a navigable waterway. You are making an extraordinary claim. For that you need extraordinary evidence. There is no indication in our genome of such a disaster. There is no local evidence of such a disaster. All you have is folklore and folklore is not reliable as evidence.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nope, one does not need a more complex brain for that. You keep failing abysmally since you cannot even define "comlpex".

Sure they do. There needs to be advanced areas of the brain which chimps do not have.

Perhaps if you could define "complex" you would have half a chance in this debate. But since creationists cannot define their terms I doubt if you will be able to do so.

Perhaps you could discuss the issue without reverting to the evasive 'define this and define that' behavior.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Sure they do. There needs to be advanced areas of the brain which chimps do not have.

Citation please.


Perhaps you could discuss the issue without reverting to the evasive 'define this and define that' behavior.


That is not evasive. That is your problem. You cannot define "complex" if you could this problem would be definitively answered one way or another. It is the same as creationist's inability to define "kind". That is why I hijacked the word and use my own working definition.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.